Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Smaller kernel, faster?

  1. #1
    SunDevil
    Guest

    Smaller kernel, faster?

    How useful is it to remove stuff you dont use from your kernel? i mean, stuff like 'pcmcia' and 'reiserfs' would the resulting kernel be fatser because it's smaller?

    Whats the deal with these modules? i can choose to load or unload a module but i have to compile my kernel first to make sure it can support that module? (see OMP: RedHat: A quick way to enable NTFS Support) Then what is the advantage of using modules?


  2. #2
    JimH
    Guest

    Re:Smaller kernel, faster?

    Quote Originally Posted by SunDevil
    How useful is it to remove stuff you dont use from your kernel? i mean, stuff like 'pcmcia' and 'reiserfs' would the resulting kernel be fatser because it's smaller?
    Yes and no. If you remove the things that you don't need that are compiled into the kernel this can help. Especially if the driver probes your hardware everytime you boot. Removing these can speed up boot time. Any modules you don't need just reduce the size of your install.

    Whats the deal with these modules? i can choose to load or unload a module but i have to compile my kernel first to make sure it can support that module? Then what is the advantage of using modules?
    Smaller kernel size. Smaller memory footprint for the kernel. With the drivers as modules, you are using only the memory you need.

    Most modules are compiled by default. It is really up to the Linux ditribution to determine what modules to enable by default. ie. most likely to be used, not too unstable, etc...

    In reference to the NTFS module, Red Hat chooses not to enable it in the kernels they ship. Prior to very recent kernel versions the NTFS module was very unstable. The module would corrupt kernel memory and indirectly this would lead to filesystem corruption. Oops. The NTFS module is now stable, however Red Hat still isn't enabling it because of concerns abotu possible patent/legal issues with the module and M$.

    Jim H

  3. #3

    Re:Smaller kernel, faster?

    Can we write to NTFS safely yet?
    if we can i might finally have a go at NTFS support.
    Its better to regret something you have done than to regret something you havent done :P

  4. #4

    Re:Smaller kernel, faster?

    nope, still very unsafe to write to NTFS, it will be a big thing when the NTFS write utility is workin nice and safe, but keep away from it for now if you like windows the way it is ;D ;D

    -Babbing

  5. #5
    Aaron_Adams
    Guest

    Re:Smaller kernel, faster?

    i can choose to load or unload a module but i have to compile my kernel first to make sure it can support that module?
    It's not necessary to recompile a kernel to support a module, in all cases. Typically, it's possible to compile a module for the specific kernel you're running. There is usually documentation that comes with module source which shows the compiler option to use.

Similar Threads

  1. namad crash, but not sure :-)
    By GNEEOT in forum Ubuntu / Debian
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-27-2007, 06:31 PM
  2. getgrnam failed for$Enabling swap space
    By infinite_root in forum Linux - General Topics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-15-2003, 08:07 AM
  3. Redhat 9 reboots by it self
    By in forum Linux - General Topics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-14-2003, 02:54 PM
  4. Sony Microvault, and Red Hat 9
    By vwgtiturbo in forum Linux - Hardware, Networking & Security
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-29-2003, 11:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •